Endangered salmon yummy? KUOW asks

We recently wrote about a Seattle federal judge’s decision to defer to the National Marine Fisheries Service on a question that has nagged for years: Should we be allowed to eat endangered salmon? Most of them get caught incidentally when fishermen target non-threatened runs, mostly produced by hatcheries, but still…

Today KUOW’s Weekday program took up the question, with some interersting results. The program was keyed to the crash of salmon stocks off the Oregon and California coasts this year prompted the Pacific Fishery Management Council to consider closing salmon fishing farther south. Next week they meet here in Seattle to make that decision.

In the recent court case, a group of what I described as “environmentalists” challenged the process that NMFS follows to allow catching of salmon, mostly off Alaska and Canada. That process allows fishing vessels to reduce Puget Sound’s runs of threatened chinook salmon by 22 to 76 percent before they even get to the rivers to spawn.

Now, some readers questioned why I called them environmentalists, when the plaintiffs include the Salmon Spawning and Recovery Alliance, which includes the Snohomish County Public Utility District. To explain: I called them that because the plaintiffs include the Wild Fish Conservancy and the Native Fish Society. Those guys are unquestionably enviros, IMHO.

But I don’t really understand Snoho PUD’s involvement, except that they’re spending $134 million over 10 years to recover salmon stocks. That would give them a reason to oppose fishing. Anyone out there know of other reasons the PUD might be involved? After that story ran, some of my correspondents suggested but did not detail more nefarious motives. Anyone want to fill me in?

Weekday had a great lineup of people from the fishery management council, the U-Dub, the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and a commercial fisherman. I can’t go into all their arguments here, but they all made good points.

The enviros’ basic contention was outlined by Kurt Beardslee of the Wild Fish Conservancy thusly:

This is the only critter ever protected under the Endangered Species Act that this conversation goes on about. … We need to change the entire paradigm we’re discussing this (in). We shouldn’t be in an extractive mode.

Should we quit fishing for salmon altogether? Host Steve Scher raised that hot potato. That seems an impossibility, not least because of the tribal treaty obligations. Like ’em or not, the tribes are guaranteed the right to fish. And they point out that even when they weren’t allowed to catch many fish at all, habitat destruction continued to drive down salmon numbers.

The tribes won’t want to hear this, but one thing to consider is how the East coast recovered striped bass: They stopped fishing for them for five years. It’s all detailed in a compelling book by Dick Russell entitlted Striper Wars. And it worked.

But David Sones of the Makah tribe told Scher that stopping all fishing for five or even 10 years won’t do any good unless the habitat is fixed:

The problems are generally in the habitat arena, and if we don’t fix those, you will see what we see on the East Coast and in Europe.

He’s talking about the near-extinction of wild fish, btw. He also pointed out that one of the key problems is the destruction of estuaries by cities such as Seattle and Tacoma, places that once protected young salmon.

Sones continued:

The tribes have always argued that if you do not pay attention to habitat and harvest, or the other issues, we will be in this situation in the future. Our elders have told us that since Day 1 when logging occurred and development occurred… The history is there. Our people understand it.

Stay tuned. After the decision about the Oregon and California salmon fishing next week, the so-called “North of Falcon” process will decide what goes on here. The situation here doesn’t look quite as bad, but it’s not a very rosy picture here, either.